Excerpt from District Court Allows ESOP Participants to Amend Complaint to Add Spouse of Trustee as Defendant:

On July 25, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an opinion holding that participants in the Trachte Building Systems, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan could amend their complaint to add the spouse of the trustee as a defendant in a claim alleging the spouse was the gratuitous transferee of phantom stock units under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified in part at 29 U.S.C. § 1002). Participants alleged that the trustee deposited $2,896,100 from a phantom stock plan into an account held solely by his spouse and that the spouse gave no consideration in exchange for the deposit. The court concluded that participants demonstrated “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 for deviating from the deadline for amending the complaint. Participants sought production of information relating to the payment, which the trustee refused to produce. The trustee responded to the discovery request only after the court issued a preliminary ruling concluding that the trustee would likely be liable...

August 2012 • Volume 1, Number 4 ESOPLEGALNEWS EDITORIAL BOARD Michael R. Holzman 202.659.6931 • mholzman@dickinsonwright.com William E. Elwood 202.659.6972 • welwood@dickinsonwright.com Cynthia A. Moore 248.433.7295 • cmoore@dickinsonwright.com Deborah L. Grace 248.433.7217 • dgrace@dickinsonwright.com Christopher T. Horner 202.659.6961 • chorner@dickinsonwright.com Websites of Interest Dickinson Wright ESOP Advisory Group The ESOP Association The ESOP Association Blog National Center for Employee Ownership Employee Ownership Foundation Disclaimer: ESOP Legal News is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in ESOP Legal News. ESOPLEGALNEWS IN THE COURTS District Court Allows ESOP Participants to Amend Complaint to Add Spouse of Trustee as Defendant On July 25, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an opinion holding that participants in the Trachte Building Systems, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan could amend their complaint to add the spouse of the trustee as a defendant in a claim alleging the spouse was the gratuitous transferee of phantom stock units under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified in part at 29 U.S.C. § 1002). Participants alleged that the trustee deposited $2,896,100 from a phantom stock plan into an account held solely by his spouse and that the spouse gave no consideration in exchange for the deposit. The court concluded that participants demonstrated “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 for deviating from the deadline for amending the complaint. Participants sought production of information relating to the payment, which the trustee refused to produce. The trustee responded to the discovery request only after the court issued a preliminary ruling concluding that the trustee would likely be liable. The litigation arose from a failed ESOP spinoff. An acquirer adopted an ESOP to facilitate acquisition of a target, which had adopted an ESOP which owned 80% of the target’s issued and outstanding capital stock. The target’s ESOP was merged with the acquirer’s ESOP, with participants in the former becoming participants in the latter. After several attempts to sell the target to a third-party, the acquirer consummated the sale of the target to the ESOP of a newly-organized corporation. The acquirer spun off its ESOP to the newlycreated ESOP, permitting the trustee, who also served as the president of the acquirer, to benefit from the redemption of phantom stock units. Shortly thereafter, the value of participant accounts declined by approximately 50%, and eventually became worthless due to the significant amount of INSIDE THIS ISSUE: District Court Allows ESOP Participants to Amend Complaint to Add Spouse of Trustee as Defendant; Department of Labor Files Action Seeking to Recover Losses Suffered by Participants; Secretary of Labor Asks Seventh Circuit to Reject Moench Presumption; Assistant Secretary Borzi Addresses Re-Proposal of Regulation Redefining Term “Fiduciary”; Pro-ESOP Legislation Re-Introduced into Senate; Pro-ESOP Legislation Garners Support; Study Indicates Jobs Grew by Approximately 60 Percent Over the Past Decade at ESOP-Owned S Corporations Compared with Other CorporationsESOPLEGALNEWS debt assumed by the newly-organized corporation. Participants filed a complaint alleging violations of ERISA. The court ultimately rendered a judgment in favor of participants and concluded that the trustee breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by dealing with plan assets in his own interest and receiving consideration from a party dealing with the plan. Department of Labor Files Action Seeking to Recover Losses Suffered by Participants On July 24, 2012, the United States Department of Labor filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking to recover losses suffered by participants in the SJP Group Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The complaint alleges that a special fiduciary did not fulfill its fiduciary duties when it approved the ESOP’s purchase of 38% of the outstanding stock of SJP Group, Inc. from an individual who was a corporate officer, director, and ESOP fiduciary. Specifically, the complaint alleges a prohibited transaction based on the ESOP purchasing the capital stock from the corporate officer for more than fair market value. The complaint seeks to have the special fiduciary and corporate officer enjoined from serving as fiduciaries of ERISA-protected plans. Secretary of Labor Asks Seventh Circuit to Reject Moench Presumption On May 30, 2012, United States Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis filed an amicus brief requesting the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reverse a district court judgment dismissing a stockdrop claim for failing to rebut the presumption of prudence. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant bank in a class action stock-drop lawsuit after concluding that participants failed to demonstrate either an excessive risk of an impending collapse or some equivalent dire circumstances. The DOL urges the Seventh Circuit to reject the presumption of prudence articulated in the Third Circuit’s landmark decision Moench v. Robertson, 62 F. 3d 553 (3d Cir. 1995). The DOL contends that the only exception to the duty of prudence imposed by ERISA on plan fiduciaries is Section 404(a)(2) of ERISA, which exempts eligible individual account plan fiduciaries from the duty to diversify plan assets. The DOL further contends that the presumption of prudence lacks a compelling justification. AGENCY NEWS Assistant Secretary Borzi Addresses Re-Proposal of Regulation Redefining Term “Fiduciary” Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis C. Borzi addressed the re-proposal of the regulation redefining the term “fiduciary” at the Great Lakes Benefits Conference, American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries and the Internal Revenue Service. In October 2010, the Department proposed a regulation that would expand the definition of the term “fiduciary” under Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA. In September 2011, the Department withdrew its proposal. Assistant Secretary Borzi stated that the re-proposed regulation would address concerns expressed about the initial proposal and would include a more comprehensive economic analysis. Borzi also addressed the reproposal in a June 20, 2012 letter addressed to House Representatives John Kline (R-MN) and George Miller (D-CA). The letter promised a “more robust economic analysis” focusing on the economic effect that the re-proposed regulation will have on sponsors, employees, and retirees. ON CAPITOL HILL Pro-ESOP Legislation Re-Introduced into Senate On July 23, 2012, Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced S. 3421, the “Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge Act,” to the United States Senate. The bill is a re-introduction of S. 2909, 111th Cong. (2009). The bill directs the Secretary of Labor to establish an “Employee Ownership and Participation Initiative” to promote employee ownership and employee participation in business decision-making. The bill directs the Secretary to make funding available to states and to collaborate with state officials to promote employee ownership. The bill has four cosponsors and is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On July 23, 2012, Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced S. 3419, the “United States Employee Ownership Bank Act,” to the United States Senate. The bill is a re-introduction of S. 2914, 111th Cong. (Dec. 18, 2009). The bill: (1) Provides for the establishment of the United States Employee Ownership Bank; (2) Authorizes the Bank to provide loans or guarantees to foster employee ownership; (3) Establishes guidelines governing loans and guarantees made by the Bank; (4) amends the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Pub. L. No. 100-379, 126 Stat. 365 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2102 et seq.), to provide employees a right of first refusal to purchase the business of their employer in the event the employer orders a plant or facility closing; And (5) amends the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 2903 et seq.), to authorize a financial supervisory agency to consider financial assistance undertaken by a financial institution to support and facilitate employee stock ownership plans. The bill has four cosponsors and is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Pro-ESOP Legislation Garners Support Since July 1, 2012, H.R. 1244, The “Promotion and Expansion of Employee Ownership Act of 2011” has gained two cosponsors to arrive at seventy-eight total cosponsors. Representatives Ted Poe (R-Tex) and Joe Heck (R-Nev) have cosponsored the bill. The bill is currently pending before several House Committees and one House Subcommittee. The bill: Amends Section 1042 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended to allow an S corporation shareholder to defer recognition of capital gain realized from the sale of employer securities to an ESOP; Adds a new section to the Code permitting banks to deduct 50% of the interest received from a qualified securities acquisition loan; Adds a new section to the Code requiring the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish the “S Corporation Employee page 2 of 3ESOPLEGALNEWS page 3 of 3 Ownership Assistance Office” to foster employee ownership of S corporations; And amends the Small Business Act, Pub. L. No. 85-536, 72 Stat. 384 (codified at 15. U.S.C. § 631 et seq.), to permit a corporation eligible to participate in loan, contracting assistance, or business development programs to remain eligible to participate after an ESOP acquires 50% or more of the corporation. RECENT RESEARCH Study Indicates Jobs Grew by Approximately 60 Percent Over the Past Decade at ESOP-Owned S Corporations Compared with Other Corporations On July 26, 2012, Alex Brill, former advisor to the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan deficit reduction commission, released a study indicating that among S corporations owned by an ESOP, job growth increased by 60% over the past decade, whereas job growth in the private economy remained relatively flat. Brill observed that “[t]he unique strengths of employee ownership drove company gains and jobs in the past decade, while helping insulate S-ESOP businesses from the adverse effects of the recent recession.” Brill’s study evaluated the performance of S corporations through a survey of 56 ESOP-owned S corporations and through analysis of data from the DOL. Other significant observations include: (1) ESOP-owned S corporations demonstrated significantly more employment growth than private businesses in the pre-2008 recession period; (2) ESOP-owned S corporations developed momentum quicker than other private firms after the recession; And (3) ESOP-owned S corporations engaged in manufacturing gained substantial benefit from their structure during the recession. Brill indicated that these positive economic results may be correlated to the beneficial effects of an employee ownership culture in private businesses. Brill also indicated that employees are substantially more invested in the success of their employer because the employees understand that it will affect their own economic well-being. Detroit 500 Woodward Avenue Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313.223.3500 Lansing 215 S. Washington Square Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48933 Phone: 517.371.1730 Ann Arbor 301 East Liberty Street Suite 500 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 734.623.7075 Troy 2600 W. Big Beaver Rd. Suite 300 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: 248.433.7200 Grand Rapids 200 Ottawa Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Phone: 616.458.1300 Saginaw 4800 Fashion Square Blvd Suite 300 Saginaw, MI 48604 Columbus 15 N. 4th Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614.744.2570 Washington, D.C. 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202.457.0160 Toronto 222 Bay Street, 18th Floor PO Box 124 Toronto, ON, Canada M5K 1H1 Phone: 416.777.0101 Nashville 424 Church Street Suite 1401 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: 615.244.6538 Phoenix 5009 East Washington Street Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85034 Phone: 602.244.1400 Las Vegas 7201 West Lake Mead Blvd. Suite 503 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Phone: 702.541.7888 Dickinson Wright Offices

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

- hide

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.